MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 5 comments

5 Responses to Obama’s Israel Policy

First of all, what’s now the conventional wisdom about Obama’s failure was earlier being stated only by Barry Rubin (whom I cited here at the time) and a few other analysts. The policy failed in exactly the way they said it would. So “I told you so” would a good first response to all those who initially supported Obama’s incredibly idiotic, sure-to-lose tactic of demanding a settlement freeze.

Larison didn’t mention here that Abbas’ unprecedented demand of a settlement freeze as a precondition to talks was a direct result of Obama’s own demand. If we assume, charitably, that Obama never really expected Netanyahu to cave in, but thought that his anti-settlement stance would gain Arab support and eventual concessions anyway, then that demonstrates an amazing misunderstanding of Arab, especially Palestinian, politics.

Even if the “settlements” were illegal under international law (which they’re not), that wouldn’t make them a serious obstacle to peace. The problems Larison listed – resentment, inequities, and discrimination – are real, and as he says they are an inevitable result of settlement, but they are not significant obstacles to peace. The “settlements” that people like Larison are talking about – the ones established since 1967 – are a problem that can easily be solved. Gaza got evacuated very easily. Judea and Samaria will be harder, with some bloodshed, but nothing catastrophic. Politically it will be easy to evacuate whatever “settlements” the vast majority of Israelis might decide to evacuate in exchange for what they see as a real end to hostilities, just as it was easy to evacuate Gaza. The Israeli near-consensus for land-for-peace is as strong as it ever was. Logistically, the evacuation will be a breeze; people are easy to move. The Arabs know all this as well as the Israelis, though of course they won’t say it.

But if the settlements in Judea and Samaria are evacuated, Palestinian resentment will remain. The real obstacle to peace is the rule of Zionist settlers since 1948 over occupied territory inside Palestine, territory commonly called “Israel”. That was the obstacle before 1967 and that’s the obstacle in 2009. So only in that sense of the word “settlement” – the Arab sense, where a resident of Ashkelon is a “settler” – are the Israeli settlements the real obstacle to peace.

I should add a note for careless readers: I’m not supporting Israeli settlement policy. I think it’s unjust, although legal. But that’s all a separate issue.

Israel’s post-1967 settlement policy is essentially a continuation of the pre-1948 policy–create exclusively Jewish colonies wherever possible, to create “facts on the ground” leading to eventual dispossession of the former inhabitants. The colonies were established throughout the “peace process” by a succession of israeli governments, leftish as well as rightish.

The Palestinian leadership has also been disingenuous, participating in a “peace process” but in fact unable or unwilling to accept partition on realistic terms.

The “two-state solution” was thus sabotaged by Israel and not truly embraced by the Palestinian leadership. When either side moved closer to acceptance, the most extreme elements on each side helped each other by engaging in slaughters and other provocations. Today, the division of authority among the Palestinians and the dominance of nationalist and religious elements in Israel make any settlement implausible.

In spite of the efforts of the likes of J Street, US policy remains in the grip of the Israel lobby, as witness the adhesion of 80% of the Congress to a materially inaccurate resolution attacking the Goldstone Report, which detailed the crimes of both Hamas and Israel in Gaza. The Lobby has power because of political donations, an astounding proportion of which are from Zionist Jews; the propensity of Jews to vote even in primaries; and a tireless hasbara or propaganda machine. Most of this activity is legal, even if hardly praiseworthy.

None of this has much to do with the US national interest. US support for Israel during the late Cold War made some strategic sense, if only because the Soviets allied themselves with the likes of Syria. Today, like most of our ties in the Old World, the inordinate expenditures of money, arms, vetoes, and attention bring no benefit to the United States. As Israel sinks ever deeper into racism and the obscurantism of the rabbis, US involvement brings no moral credit to us, either.

It may be too late to impose a solution, and twist arms (very hard!) to get one, as Eisenhower did after the 1956 war. It’s probably better for us simply to butt out–no money, no arms, no vetoes or either side. That, like most paleo notions, is a pipe dream. Hence this albatross will continue its fetid decay around our national neck.

Daniel, several typos in The Week piece, which happens, but I’m interested in one. Did you mean D- or d- emocratic at the end of the second graf? Also, do you scan any Israel or Palestinian press, read summarizing bloggers (who?), and/or read mainly American press accounts of the I-P dispute?

Sorry about the typos. The word should have been Democratic. I tend to rely on a mix of foreign policy commentary on blogs (e.g., Rozen, Daniel Levy, Atlantic blogs, Walt), some Israeli press, whatever commentary I can find on RealClearWorld and newspaper accounts from here. I don’t follow it as closely as a lot of people do, so I am probably missing some valuable sources. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Well, I’m behind, I didn’t know Rozen went to Politico. Daniel Levy is excellent. I’ve suggested Realistic Dove by Dan Fleshler before, he’s even written a book. Another of Walt’s blogrolls, Richard Silverstein is probably known to you. I can’t offer much help there.